One last Expansion pack, before saying goodbye?

[FOARP]

I think less complicated would be to use move=attack, but have the speed with which a full-strength engagement develops and the ability of the defender to retreat early change as the game goes by. In 1821, the first few days of combat will just be cavalry skirmishes, and the defender will have a good chance of retreating with little penalty; in effect, the armies will maneuver like EU3 doomstacks. In 1921, the enemy's tanks will be in your face the moment they commit to the engagement.

Yup, I was thinking of something along the same line - make it move=attack from the start but play around with battle speed/casualty rates/frontage so that at the start it's possible to concentrate large numbers of troops on a short frontage where the battle is decided in a few days (i.e., the typical Napoleonic-era battle), and then steadily increase the frontage each unit has whilst greatly increasing their stats and slowing combat down.

Examples -

1836

An army of thirty infantry regiments (90,000 men) covers a thirty-mile front (i.e., one province), with each regiment being able to attack/defend on one mile of front with one attack/defend dice-roll. Artillery units add points to the front-line units, and cavalry add scouting points allowing better targetting and have good attack stats relative to infantry.

1918

An army of ten infantry regiments (30,000 men) covers the same thirty-mile front, with each regiment being able to attack/defend against all the enemy units opposite them on three miles of front with one attack/defend dice-roll. Tanks fill the attack role of cavalry, aircraft the scouting/raiding role, and artillery still supports units at the front.

What happens when a low tech-army attacks a high-tech one? Well, since one 1918-tech regiment attacks/defends against all the units opposite them on three miles of front, if three 1836-tech regiments attack a 1918-tech regiment, the 1918 regiment will hit all of them on each dice-roll, with much better stats, meaning the battle would result in the 1836-tech army getting massacred.

Yeah, most of the cool stuff is definitely more sequel material. As said we wont do any more expansions for V2 though so you will have to hold out for a V3 hopefully at some point. The old expansion model makes it much trickier to make smaller dlc/expansion packs as well.

V2 players are really loyal, which makes sense, there is really no other game quite like it out there, so while the game might not have been as popular as CK2, EU3, HOI3 etc i see lots of people playing it and being very visible on forums and reddit etc so doing a sequel would feel pretty safe. I think there are lots of things we could do to improve it much like EU4 and CK2 have done as well with much better interfaces and a good abstraction level without dumbing anything down. You can be sure it will contain a rethink on the market so we can get decent submarine mechanics. Submarines are awesome , but not really compatible with the current world market system.



Yeah I dont know that it fits that well and doing a switch mid-game will be confusing. Perhaps do it based on unit types so normal infantry fights as normal, tanks can perform movement is attack and artillery can not conquer but can support nearby attacks and bombard nearby provinces without movement. Just a random though.

I'm just glad you guys are actively thinking about this and don't think WW1 isn't important. I'm sure you'll have something decent if/when Vicky 3 rolls out.

 

[CaptRobau]

Well I would love Vic3. My understanding it will be, before or around 2020, and that's not set in stone. So it could be after 2020. Same with HOI4. Most think HOI4 will be 1st. So you have 6 years to go, or more. Why not one last Expansion before saying goodbye and abandoning it.

Not I'm not looking for it to fix any hard coded problems. It's even been said by some Devs, that some problems can't be fixed. That it would need a sequel to fix a lot of problems.

I just would like to see another Expansion before it's dead jim.

What the hell are you expecting in the coming 6 years (!) from PDS? Until now they've practically released a big title (non-expansion/DLC) every year, or in the case of the Clausewitz engine switch (HoI2-EU3) 2 years. Only thing we have for 2014 is East vs. West, which isn't even a title of the main PDS team. What they are going to for more than half a decade if not HoI4 and/or V3?

 

[Beagá]

Thanks for the input Podcat.

Indeed, without a convoy/Merchant fleet system submarines would never be modelled properly.

 

[Beagá]

Yup, I was thinking of something along the same line - make it move=attack from the start but play around with battle speed/casualty rates/frontage so that at the start it's possible to concentrate large numbers of troops on a short frontage where the battle is decided in a few days (i.e., the typical Napoleonic-era battle), and then steadily increase the frontage each unit has whilst greatly increasing their stats and slowing combat down.

Yeah the only way of doing it is a system where frontage is very wide and then shrinks to an extent.

Oh wait it´s exactly what happens already!

And divisions in HOI also are pushed back and seldom destroyed specially when armies have the same speed, which would be the case in everything between 1836-1914. Or are you honestly saying that any infantry versus infantry battle in both HOI 2 and 3 AREN´T whack-a-mole, considering the ONLY way to destroy a division is by encircling or overruning it, hmmmmmm?

In EXACTLY the same way as already happens here?

Also, what stopped breakthroughs in WW1 was the SPEED and fatigue of infantry, NOT combats taking 4 months to resolve.

The only real advantage of the system would be to make a HOI 3 style OOB easier to simulate. And therefore make it also easier for the AI to control stuff and make continuous fronts. The Theather stuff for HOI 3 is wonderful. With a Corps > Army > Theather only levels of OOB as HOI 3 has too many levels.

But to claim a HOI system would end whack-a-mole is TOTALLY fallacious as anyone who has played those games can attest. There aren´t armored divisions in almost all of the time frame of this game.

 

[wildbillhdmax01]

What the hell are you expecting in the coming 6 years (!) from PDS? Until now they've practically released a big title (non-expansion/DLC) every year, or in the case of the Clausewitz engine switch (HoI2-EU3) 2 years. Only thing we have for 2014 is East vs. West, which isn't even a title of the main PDS team. What they are going to for more than half a decade if not HoI4 and/or V3?

This is what I've hear over and over again.

 

[FOARP]

Yeah the only way of doing it is a system where frontage is very wide and then shrinks to an extent.

Oh wait it´s exactly what happens already!

Re-read what I wrote: I proposed the exact opposite. I proposed a system whereby frontage starts out narrow and then increases, meaning you move from large armies concentrated in a small area (i.e., the situation at Waterloo) to smaller forces spread along a wider front because they can hold more ground with less men.

The rest of what you wrote seems a bit angry. There's no need for me to rehash why Vicky's combat system is whack-a-mole - you can read all the people who have already posted to explain why they think this.

 

[NikephorosSonar]

If I may, I'd like to post some movements from the War of the Rebellion (ACW) so people can see what a decent approximation of what Vicky combat should help allow:

Spoiler

and one from the Russo-Ottoman War of 1877-1878:

Spoiler

 

[Oliver Twopence]

Re-read what I wrote: I proposed the exact opposite. I proposed a system whereby frontage starts out narrow and then increases, meaning you move from large armies concentrated in a small area (i.e., the situation at Waterloo) to smaller forces spread along a wider front because they can hold more ground with less men.

Say, the reason it is like this now is to somehow model trench warfare, isnt it? It makes battles last longer? It always kinda bothered me that larger forces become less effective later in the game, even though, in reality, they would easily have encircled a smaller enemy force and blasted it to pieces.

 

[Gwax23]

Damn I was hoping for one more expansion. No matter hopefully this new sequel comes out sooner than 2020 (Which I think Is a bit ridiculous)

 

[Cataphractoi]

Another aspect of Victoria that needs some examination is covert affairs. They are effectively unmodeled In the current game, which, frustratingly, means you have little to no effect on the internal affairs of other countries. Without invading them, that is. If spying, sponsoring rebels/ideologies (which type might depend upon your gov type/party), would add a lot of interactibility with other countries, and possibly make events like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and resulting demands/war with Serbia. Or the infamous "Lenin given passage by German government" event along with a caveat that, if the revolution succeeds, your demands in whatever war you are fighting are agreed to. Classic espionage would be possible as well, with such actions as seeing inside their borders, knowing the stats of their best general, assassinating said general, knowing their tech, wealth, etc.

You can see how this type of mechanic might be interesting, and add a whole new level of complexity to diplomacy. I think it's a shame it wasn't included in Victoria 2.

 

[Beagá]

The rest of what you wrote seems a bit angry. There's no need for me to rehash why Vicky's combat system is whack-a-mole - you can read all the people who have already posted to explain why they think this.

When 3 infantry divisions from Germany in 1940 attack 3 french divisions in HOI 3, the army that loses will fall back, regain org, and have to be fought AGAIN. It won´t be wiped out.

It IS whack-a-mole in the sense it wasn´t decisive AND you will have to fight the same army again, and again, and again, until either it loses ALL strength (unlikely) or you push it all the way to the Atlantic and finally surround it.

The points are simple:

1- You think attack-move is the Holy Grail (it isn´t, only a marginal improvement in some aspects, above all continuous front, NOT whack-a-mole)
2- The current system is 100% crap (it only fails late game after 1890 and specially when planes appear)
3- The current system can´t be improved (it can, with rework and a better battle screen, not the one from EU 3 which is almost ten years old).

 

[Oliver Twopence]

Surely the whack-a-mole aspect is just a matter of tuning the battles to be more decisive? At least early game. I don't really see how it is directly related to either move=attack or normal combat by itself.

 

[Damerell]

Surely the whack-a-mole aspect is just a matter of tuning the battles to be more decisive? At least early game. I don't really see how it is directly related to either move=attack or normal combat by itself.

It may be easier for armies to retreat in unexpected directions when multiple armies engage in multiple provinces under normal combat. Under move=attack, as I understand it, an army in A attacking B effectively interdicts both provinces; another enemy army retreating from another combat cannot retreat to either, or if it did, would become part of that engagement. Under normal combat, the army is either in A not having moved yet, leaving B a viable destination for retreat, or has moved into B and commenced the attack, leaving A a viable destination.

Hence it's easier to maintain a coherent line under move=attack, stopping shattered enemy armies from retreating through gaps.

 

[Beagá]

Through gaps in YOUR lines. But not backwards.

And nothing stops making the system forbid to retreat to enemy held provinces, even if there are no armies there.

 

[Damerell]

And nothing stops making the system forbid to retreat to enemy held provinces, even if there are no armies there.

That would certainly make rebel suppression very easy.

 

[Mef]

This is what my Victoria fanboy eyes read:

• Yeah, most of the cool stuff is definitely more sequel material.

• Yeah, we're doing that cool stuff in the sequel
  

  As said we wont do any more expansions for V2 though so you will have to hold out for a V3 hopefully at some point. The old expansion model makes it much trickier to make smaller dlc/expansion packs as well.

• We've retired V2 and are now making V3 with the same DLC model, workshop integration, etc. that we've done for EU4.
  

  V2 players are really loyal, which makes sense, there is really no other game quite like it out there, so while the game might not have been as popular as CK2, EU3, HOI3 etc i see lots of people playing it and being very visible on forums and reddit etc so doing a sequel would feel pretty safe.

• When deciding on our next games, we though that V3 would be the safest option and, as Johan said, something that nobody would be surprised by.
  

  I think there are lots of things we could do to improve it much like EU4 and CK2 have done as well with much better interfaces and a good abstraction level without dumbing anything down.

• V2 already has loyal fans and if we make V3 more accessible like our recent games, we think it has the potential to be a big hit.
  

  You can be sure it will contain a rethink on the market so we can get decent submarine mechanics. Submarines are awesome , but not really compatible with the current world market system.

• We're redesigning the world market system.
  

  Yeah I dont know that it fits that well and doing a switch mid-game will be confusing. Perhaps do it based on unit types so normal infantry fights as normal, tanks can perform movement is attack and artillery can not conquer but can support nearby attacks and bombard nearby provinces without movement. Just a random though.

• We're having lots of random thoughts about V3, because we're currently developing it.
  

And this is what the pessimist in me read:

• Yeah, most of the cool stuff is definitely more sequel material.

• We had so many cool ideas, but they'll have to wait until we make a sequel
  

  As said we wont do any more expansions for V2 though so you will have to hold out for a V3 hopefully at some point. The old expansion model makes it much trickier to make smaller dlc/expansion packs as well.

• We decided that it's not worth making more expansions when DLCs are a much better business model
  

  V2 players are really loyal, which makes sense, there is really no other game quite like it out there, so while the game might not have been as popular as CK2, EU3, HOI3 etc i see lots of people playing it and being very visible on forums and reddit etc so doing a sequel would feel pretty safe.

• We're not making V3, because the game isn't popular, so I'm telling you how loyal you are to console you.
  

  I think there are lots of things we could do to improve it much like EU4 and CK2 have done as well with much better interfaces and a good abstraction level without dumbing anything down.

• I wish we could do a V3 like CK2 or EU4, but it was rejected...
  

  You can be sure it will contain a rethink on the market so we can get decent submarine mechanics. Submarines are awesome , but not really compatible with the current world market system.

• I already planned all of this but I was rejected...
  

  Yeah I dont know that it fits that well and doing a switch mid-game will be confusing. Perhaps do it based on unit types so normal infantry fights as normal, tanks can perform movement is attack and artillery can not conquer but can support nearby attacks and bombard nearby provinces without movement. Just a random though.

• I want to make V3 so badly, I'm having random thoughts about it and have to post them on the forums, even though we're not making the game.

 

[wildbillhdmax01]

And this is what the pessimist in me read:

• We had so many cool ideas, but they'll have to wait until we make a sequel
  
• We decided that it's not worth making more expansions when DLCs are a much better business model
  
• We're not making V3, because the game isn't popular, so I'm telling you how loyal you are to console you.
  
• I wish we could do a V3 like CK2 or EU4, but it was rejected...
  
• I already planned all of this but I was rejected...
  
• I want to make V3 so badly, I'm having random thoughts about it and have to post them on the forums, even though we're not making the game.

Don't Say that! Get out of here! Sho! Get!

 

[Sarius1997]

-snip-

I´ve read almost the same in it.

 

[FOARP]

Through gaps in YOUR lines. But not backwards.

And nothing stops making the system forbid to retreat to enemy held provinces, even if there are no armies there.

I'm sorry, but the point you're trying to make is ridiculous - HOI3 is not whack-a-mole because you can completely destroy enemy armies by surrounding them and cutting them off from supply. You only have to do this once. Battles are decisive. Just ask yourself - have you ever once seen anyone complain about the HOI3 comabt system being whack-a-mole?

Vicky 2 IS whack-a-mole because enemy units can simply retreat BEHIND your army and then wander though your provinces without even having supply-lines. You may have won, but you then have to engage in many pointless battles against an enemy that can easily escape. That's not just whack-a-mole, that's the definition of whack-a-mole.

Move=attack is key.

 

[Damerell]

Move=attack is key.

Your argument doesn't justify your conclusion. In Vicky 2, if you completely surround an enemy army and beat it, it will be destroyed [1]; but primarily, you seem to have made an argument that the game should trace supply lines (an excellent idea). If Vicky 2 did that, it would not need move=attack; enemy units could not retreat to a province that was out of supply, and a surrounded army would necessarily be out of supply.

[1] To anticipate a response here, it could be impossible to retreat to the province you were attacked from in a system otherwise like the current one.